Leave a comment

July 7, 2010 by jamesessj

Two rather brilliant analogies I’ve heard made in the last 24 hours that highlight inconsistencies in the liberal point of view on two major issues…

First, from Charles Krauthammer, regarding the Supreme Court’s gun decision of a few days ago.  A major foundation of the dissent to the 5-4 decision, signed by Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor (Stevens, in his final case, offered a separate dissenting opinion), was the notion that public safety is involved — i.e., guns kill, and we’ve got to do something about it, so the Chicago ban is okay by us.  Putting aside the fact that this argument never invokes a single point of actual constitutional law, Krauthammer makes this analogy:  the rights protecting the accused often lead to the freeing of the accused for no good reason other than that those rights were infringed in one way or another — perhaps the search that found the drugs wasn’t legal, or the accused’s Miranda rights weren’t delivered properly, or any of a million other technicalities that have no bearing on the actual guilt of the suspect.  They’re merely safeguards we’ve erected over the years to ensure that defendants receive every possible fair consideration.  It’s undeniable, however, that these rights degrade public safety — after all, if you let a rapist go free because of some issue with the evidence, you’re taking one hell of a chance that the rapist will rape again.  Still, we let the rapist go free…because we have made the judgment that the rights of the individual outweigh public safety concerns.

Except, that is, when it comes to the Second Amendment.  If these three liberal justices applied the same logic to the rights of the accused as they do to gun ownership, they would immediately strike down every decision meant to safeguard defendants’ rights since, and including, Miranda.

I’d never thought of it this way…thanks, Charles.

Second, a reporter at the White House yesterday asked Robert Gibbs this question (I paraphrase):  “If the issue with the Arizona immigration law is that Arizona is usurping Federal authority on immigration, why doesn’t the White House go after the many ‘sanctuary’ cities around the country that have very openly flaunted Federal immigration law by refusing to detain or deport illegal immigrants?”

I don’t know who the reporter was, other than that she was young, female, and has probably destroyed whatever career she was hoping to have.  But hers was an absolutely brilliant question that reveals the vacuity of the White House’s position, and it was fun to watch poor Mr. Gibbs fumble around an answer of “I don’t know, I’ll try to get some information on that.”  He might as well have answered, “Because it’s a double standard, that’s why.”

For giving ’em hell and giving up your future, thanks to you, too, Unknown Reporter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

the author, if he lives that long

Willkommen, bienvenue…

Welcome! And please enjoy your stay with us here at the last piece. We love visitors, especially attractive male ones with loose morals, so if you're one of those, please do leave your name and number. If you're not male, or male and unattractive, or if your morals are...what's the opposite of loose? tight?...if your morals are tight, we still want to hear from you; we just won't be replying. Thank you again and don't be a stranger!

July 2010
« Jun   Aug »


%d bloggers like this: